Search

Objectives: We investigated the impact of our laboratory's reflex testing process for resolving ERBB2 (HER2) status on breast cancer samples that require additional workup after fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), per guideline recommendations published in 2018 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP).Methods: In total, 500 breast cancer specimens with ERBB2 FISH results in groups 2 through 4 (all reported as immunohistochemistry [IHC] equivocal [2+] at external laboratories) were resubmitted for IHC testing in our laboratory. Per the ASCO/CAP guideline, FISH was rescored when internal IHC was also equivocal (2+), targeted to tumor areas demonstrating more intense IHC staining, if observed.Results: Reflex IHC/FISH testing changed the final reported ERBB2 status in 185 of 500 (37.0%) samples. Result changes included discordant IHC (n = 4 score 0, n = 132 score 1+, and n = 16 score 3+) and discordant FISH (n = 33). Numerical differences in FISH scores were comparable for targeted vs nontargeted FISH rescoring (P = .086 for ERBB2 copy number; P = .49 for ERBB2 ratio). Two cases showed larger differences in FISH scores, suggesting heterogeneity.Conclusions: Retesting of breast cancer samples with equivocal IHC frequently changes IHC results, but targeted reanalysis of borderline FISH results rarely identifies significant differences in ERBB2 copy number or ratio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Accurate assessment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 is critical for the management of patients with breast cancer. We set out to study the impact of the 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines on the interpretation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 IHC results and its correlation with fluorescence in situ hybridization results. Invasive breast carcinomas with IHC HercepTest 3+ were retrieved from the archive of Mayo Clinic Rochester. The human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 slides were rereviewed, and results were recorded as percentage of invasive tumor cells with 3+, 2+, 1+, and 0 staining intensity. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed on all tumors with 3+ staining in 70% or less of tumor cells. Of the 141 cases studied, 12 cases showed intense membrane staining in 11% to 30% of the invasive tumor cells and would have been scored as 2+ according to the new American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines. Of these 12 cases, 6 were positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization (ratio >2.2), 4 cases were negative (HER2/CEP17 ratio of < 1.8), and 2 cases were equivocal (ratio of 1.8-2.2). One human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive case showed dramatic intratumoral heterogeneity with high-level amplification (ratio of 12.2) in the IHC 3+ area and no amplification (ratio of 1.0) in the IHC 1+/2+ areas. The 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines down-scored 2.8% of tumors from human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (IHC 3+) to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (IHC 2+ equivocal and fluorescence in situ hybridization negative) in this study. Clinical studies are needed to determine whether the updated guidelines are better at predicting response to anti–human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 therapy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]